From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Factual issue in picture caption

"Emperor Norton regularly strolled the streets of San Francisco in an elaborate blue uniform complete with tarnished gold-plated epaulettes."

Is it possible to have tarnished gold-plated epaulettes? Gold doesn't tarnish. 216.52.69.217 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they were just really dirty? -- maru (talk) contribs 03:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Where the gold-plate rubs off, the epaulettes will tarnish. Nareek 11:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Golden Gate bridge

IIRC, The History Channel did a show on Emperor Norton I and at the end showed a plaque by the Golden Gate bridge with Norton's decree about building the bridge. Is that a real plaque or something THC cooked up for the show?

  • Probably true. Norton in his lifetime said that something like the suspention bridges built of vines by Amazon jungle natives should be built where the Golden Gate now stands. While the Golden Gate does have supports, documentaries about Norton have said (accurately or not) that it is a sort of suspention bridge not yet built in Norton's lifetime and hence his decree was prophetic. Shaundakulbara 18:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Return of the Emperor

We have acted overly hastily and had forgotten to first declare Our return and re-ascension before attempting Our Great Works! Let Us now rectify this grievous oversight forthwith by Declaring the Return of Our Imperial Majesty, Norton I, Emperor of The United States, Protector of Mexico, and of the USEnet, and forthwith and forevermore Protector of Wikipedia! With Our Assumption of the Protectorate of Wikipedia now official it is Our hope that We may begin Our plans unmolested. Though it is Our experience that such matters are oft contested regardless of divine right. Emperor Norton the First 08:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen. Strange gods hanging around skies distributing divine rights is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical proclamation! -- Gwern (contribs) 17:01 15 February 2007 (GMT)

FA status

I came here after reading through Neil Gaiman's Sandman. One chapter is the story of Norton and a fictious account of how the Endless shaped him. Anyway, I wanted to say that this article was very well written and it's also moving in a way. I'm hoping that you all can get this page back up to status and maybe make it an article of the day. Good Luck to you all, I'd help out but I really know nothing of the man. H2P ( Yell at me for what I've done) 06:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Review of Joshua A. Norton

Copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Nishkid64&oldid=138981027

In general, I thought that this article was quite good. You have managed to write a clear, full portrait of a rather obscure historical figure - nice work. Here are the things that I think you might need to address before the article can become an FA:

  • General issues:
  • The biggest problem that I see in the article is that it has a bit of an "in-universe" feel to the writing. I am not sure that we should be presenting the article from Norton's perspective, as it were. So, for example, I do not believe that he should be called the "Emperor" in the article, I believe that he should always be referred to as "Norton."
    • checkY Done Removed usages of "Emperor", and replaced with "Norton". I will also try to look over the article and hopefully be able to fix the issue. Nishkid64 ( talk) 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The lead is not a standalone summary of the article per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources."
    • checkY Done I've expanded the lead a bit to cover the whole article. Let me know what you think. Nishkid64 ( talk) 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there speculation on what his mental condition might have been? Usually biographers and historians like to try and guess those sorts of things.
  • MOS kinds of issues:
  • Don't link individual years per WP:DATE unless they are linked to some specific page. Although the policy says "some people feel this way" and "some people feel that way," at FAC I've only ever seen "don't link individual years."
    • checkY Done All individual year links removed. Nishkid64 ( talk) 15:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I was recently informed that people with dyslexia have a hard time reading large blocks of italics. You might want to consider de-italicizing your blocked quotes. (I had italicized my blocked quotes as well.)
    • checkY Done All italics removed (except for Norton's ending line of the first Imperial Decree). Nishkid64 ( talk) 15:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • All of your footnotes should be cited in exactly the same way. There are some inconsistencies right now. Also, please italicize the titles of all newspapers and books.
  • checkY Done I think I've fixed all the mistakes. Nishkid64 ( talk) 20:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sources - not all of your sources appear to be reliable. Can you get this information from other places?
  • Patricia E. Carr. Emperor Norton I: The benevolent dictator beloved and honored by San Franciscans to this day. American History. Retrieved on 23 April 2007. - Looks a little sketchy once you go back to the home page. Not really clear what the page is. It definitely looks self-published.
    • checkY Done It's actually from American History Illustrated magazine. I've now replaced the web ref with journal ref. Nishkid64 ( talk) 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Dakers, Hazel (April 6, 2000). Benjamin Norden (1798-1876). Southern Africa Jewish Genealogy. JewishGen.org. Retrieved on September 18, 2006. - This looks like it might be self-published, too.
    • checkY Done Removed and replaced. Nishkid64 ( talk) 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Kit and Morgan Benson (1 January 2001). Joshua "Emperor Norton I" Norton (1819 - 1880). Find A Grave. Retrieved on 17 April 2007. - This site is unreliable. Here is a quote from their page: "Who is behind Find A Grave? Well, first of all, you are. Thousands of contributors submit new listings, updates, corrections, photographs and virtual flowers every hour. The site simply wouldn't exist without the 200,000+ contributors." Who's to say that they are right?
    • checkY Done Removed and replaced. Nishkid64 ( talk) 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Joel Gazis-Sax (1998). He abolishes Congress. Retrieved on 24 April 2007. - This also looks like it is probably self-published. (You have several citations from this site.)
    • Well, I used his website as a reference because he had a list of all of Emperor Norton's imperial decrees. It's self-published, but it's not his own information. When I first started using this as a reference, I figured this would be labeled as an unreliable source, but I don't that is the case. Nishkid64 ( talk) 17:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • There is one source that I used [1], that was actually written by Joel Gazis-Sax. Nishkid64 ( talk) 18:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. California Department of Transportation. Retrieved on 18 Aril 2007. Can you not find this information somewhere a little more reliable? The page, because it lacks an author, does not fill me with confidence, even though it appears to be from the CDT.
    • checkY Done Removed and replaced. Nishkid64 ( talk) 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Examples of Emperor Norton Notes. Wells Fargo History Museum. Retrieved on 19 September 2006. - This site seems to be a conglomeration of self-published contributions - see here. Can you not get the notes form the Museum site itself?
  • Asbury, Herbert (1933). The Barbary Coast. Garden City Publishing Company, Inc. - Please note that the site says "adapted from" the book. I suggest you find the book or make that clear in the citation.
    • checkY Done Adaptation number seems to be incorrect. A newer version of the same 1933 book indicates that it was only 98,200 shares, not a 1,000,000+ as claimed in the adaptation. I've used this number and cited the book as the source. Nishkid64 ( talk) 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to paste this review somewhere more convenient, feel free to do so. I hope that it helps. I didn't really have that much to say. Awadewit | talk 08:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to work on your suggestions, Awadewit. Nishkid64 ( talk) 15:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see someone taking on the task of polishing this article. I've done a fair amount of work on it myself, after being taken by it's irreverent and entertaining tone. In its initial elevation to FA, it was cited for "brilliant and compelling prose" and I would hate to see that lost as part of any revival effort. When the article was demoted, the two major complaints were 1) trivia, and 2) lack of sufficient in-line citations. I think the trivia concern has been taken care of; that leaves references. There is a wealth of material available in the history room of the San Francisco public library that could be used to beef up the references. Good luck, I'll help as I have the time. -- Paul 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We have lots of references, but some of them might not meet WP:RS. I live on the other side of the country, so I'm really limited on my Emperor Norton sources. If you live in San Francisco, I'd really appreciate it if you could do some library digging. Nishkid64 ( talk) 17:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding some more information...

Just want to add some additional information you may found useful. If you need a source, it is Beyond Belief by Ron Lynn and Jenny Paschall published by Stanley Paul, originally in 1993. He moved to San Francisco during the goldrush where he did what you have written here. The rice shipment came from South America, a place he did not expect a shipment to arrive from. Afteer paying off his debts and re-emerging from exile in ashabby Colonel's uniform, he proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States of America in the following proclaimation that he gave to the editor of the San Francisco Times, demanding it be published the next day. It was. I know not if he gave his proclamation (which you have in full) to other newspapers but it was only published in the San Francisco Times. From then on his 'reign' began. The citizens of San Francisco accepted him and would bow to him perhaps impressed by his audacity. During his tenure, he drafted several letters to President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, assuring him he would take care of the economy. He was neytral and so wore during the time of the war a Union Army coat and a Confederate Navy hat. He fixed the economy problem by issuing his own money and making it legal tender in merchants around town. He also levied taxes. The Emperor became a tourist attraction, great for business and for merchandise- picture postcards, dolls in his likeness and coloured litiographs were among the selection. He ate, drank, rode and attended at threates for free, And even now, on the anniversary of his death, a party is held in the cemetary where he resides, in his honour. Feel free to include as much or as little as is appropriate. Rev. James Triggs 10:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but it seems like we covered almost all of what you wrote in the article already. I'll see if there's anything missing. Nishkid64 ( talk) 21:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Joshua A. Norton → Emperor Norton I — I think that the article name should be changed to Emperor Norton I, because it is the name most commonly used in English. Although some Wikipedia naming conventions state that honorifics shouldn't be used unless it's part of a title, I beleive that including the title while ignoring the naming conventions ( Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) will improve the quality of Wikipedia by featuring the name most likely to be used when referring to the person. —-- Osho-Jabbe 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey (old)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support Emperor Norton is how he's famous now. Nobody's gonna look up "Joshua A. Norton," and nobody called him back then "Joshua A. Norton" after he declared himself emperor. Mtsmallwood ( talk) 19:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Norton is known only because he assumed his imperial style. I have only ever really heard of him as "emperor". Charles 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. As well, I've only seen "Joshua A. Norton" as a historical footnote while discussing Emperor Norton I. -- Gwern (contribs) 23:03 20 June 2007 (GMT)
  • Oppose I don't really think it's a good idea, since the name appears to be a misleading (he was only a self-appointed emperor, not a real one). I don't know, I'll see what other people have to say. I might change my mind. Nishkid64 ( talk) 00:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The form does not follow the naming conventions established for monarchs, therefore there is no confusion. This is somewhat comparable to Queen Latifah, who is not really a queen. Charles 00:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has been discussed before (see above "Naming of Emperor Norton"). My opinion hasn't changed: Emperor Norton didn't exist; Joshua A. Norton did. Besides, both "Emperor Norton" and "Emperor Norton I" redirect here. It should stay as it is. A better use of editor;s time would be to fix up the article by improving the prose and providing cites, so it could regain FA status -- Paul 01:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If "Emperor Norton" didn't exist (that is the basis of this article), why are there those two redirects and why is this article here in the first place? Charles 02:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Of course "Emperor Norton" is not "the basis of this article." The basis of the article is a historic personage by the name of Joshua A. Norton, who became famous as an eccentric. Moving this article to "Emperor Norton I" makes about as much sense, as moving "Edgar Bergen" to "Charles McCarthy."-- Paul 05:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You are right, the basis of this article isn't Emperor Norton I, just like the basis for the article Lewis Carroll isn't Lewis Carroll. They are both about factual people who became known under names different than their own. Yet I don't see the article about the historic persona Charles L. Dodgson being under his real name. -- Osho-Jabbe 05:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment He isn't known commonly by anything other than Emperor Norton. Charles 13:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Other monarchs don't have "king" or "emperor" in their article titles. This offends WP:MOS, and really cannot be justified. -- Beardo 02:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Norton was not a monarch therefore the rules for naming monarchs do not apply. Do you propose renaming Queen Latifah? I thought common usage prevailed. Charles 02:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Paul, redirects lead here and citations as always are needed. I vonH 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title of the article should stay as is. Norton was never an Emperor, and should be shown here with his legal name- not a fantasy one. See other false pretender pages for examples. Tim Foxworth 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Emperor Norton I is a fictional name that he assigned himself. I believe that the redirect and the note in the first sentence of the summary is sufficient. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. Use of common names is policy. There are two reasons not to use titles: to avoid longer article titles than necessary; and to avoid WP endorsing opinions on who is the present King of France, or other disputed claim. Neither apply here; as neither apply at Queen Latifah. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't you mean Oppose? Supporting this survey is for moving the page, and opposing is for retaining the common name. -- Paul 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. Queen Latifah is a stage name - she has basically effaced her previous name and replaced it with this one. Norton did nothing of the sort - his name continued to be "Joshua Norton" throughout his reign, and "Emperor Norton" was his title because he claimed to be, and was treated as, an emperor. I'm sure he would also have responded to "Emperor Joshua Norton", "Emperor Joshua A. Norton", or even "Your Majesty" - "Emperor Norton" was never his name. DenisMoskowitz 20:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Emperor Norton is the name by which he is most commonly referred to. I don't think for a second that he was really Emperor of the United States, but come on, I thought that this stuff was simple! I haven't any idea why people are specifically citing conventions for monarchs to name Norton, to not name him, etc, when they don't apply to him at all. Charles 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sufficiently convinced to withdraw my opposition, but not enough to switch to support. I guess I'm No Opinion for now. DenisMoskowitz 02:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, he's better known as Emperor Norton. So what? That's what redirects are for. His actual name is Joshua A. Norton and was not actually an Emperor. Also, as a consistency issue, it would be truly bizarre if pretenders to a throne got the title, but actual kings didn't. I mean, James Francis Edward Stuart styled himself King James III, and we don't care. It's not like Queen Latifah where it's a name rather than a title. SnowFire 04:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Just because the name redirects doesn't mean that the articles title shouldn't be changed. Any subject that has two atributable names will usually have a redirect for the less common names but the article should always use the common usage as the title. -- Osho-Jabbe 05:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's better he has his real name, he never was an emperor and noone really recognised him as an emperor, even if people let him have his way because he did not harm anyone. BTW, according to naming conventions of monarchs, shouldn't a new name for the article rather be Norton I of the United States? - *Ulla* 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If you made note of any of the discussion, you would see that the naming conventions for monarchs does not apply to Norton as he was not a monarch. He is known most commonly by the name "Emperor Norton" (see the discussion below). Charles 03:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have read the discussion. I know Norton was not a monarch, that is why I oppose the change. "Emperor" is not a name, it is a monarchial title. Calling him "Emperor Norton" is just like calling him "Norton I of the United States". Don't blame me, it's you who want the change. Should we change George W. Bush to President Bush too? Should we change Phil McGraw to Dr. Phil? I don't think so. - *Ulla* 13:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't know what there is that people are not getting. Emperor Norton is not just like calling him Norton I of the United States because the latter would mean he falls under the Wikipedia naming conventions for monarchs, which he does not. Since he does not, the forms that would otherwise be labelled as incorrect for monarchs are free for use where they are the most common name for non-monarchs. For instance, Emperor Norton. I don't know about Bush or Dr. Phil, as I haven't examined those, but it is clear as crystal with this article. Charles 15:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, he would not "fall under" the naming conventions, he would just be treated the same way as if he would - and mind you, I am not advocating that style, but I think it would be more logical than "Emperor Norton". Emperor is a title, it's not part of his name, and it is a phony selfasumed title, hence it should not be part of the article heading. I can't see how you can think the issue is "clear as crystal" in your favour and I can't believe you are not familiar with either President Bush or Dr. Phil, two very well known persons of our time. - *Ulla* 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Emperor Norton I was not a stage name, it was just an assumed title for an eccentric E.G. 20:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion (old)

Any additional comments:

Mark Twain and Queen Latifah are pseudonyms. In their public work, people with pseudonyms use that name consistently and pretend that they don't have their original name. Norton didn't claim that he was no longer "Joshua A. Norton" - he claimed that "Joshua A. Norton" had the title of Emperor. Whether or not that claim was true, his name was and is "Joshua A. Norton" and he should be listed under that name in Wikipedia according to our naming conventions. DenisMoskowitz 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read our naming conventions; the question is not what his legal name was, or what he called himself, but what our readers will know him as: Johnny Appleseed, not John Chapman; Molly Pitcher, not Mary Ludwig Hays McCauley. WP:COMMONNAME uses Julius Caesar (not Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus; we don't use Gaius Iulius Caesar either, although he did) and Venus de Milo (not Aphrodite of Melos). (This sort of situation arises most often for a pseudonym, of course; but is not limited to it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Our naming conventions accord him the name by which he is most commonly known. "Google tests", while rudimentary, provide a little insight:
Of course, a number of those results will overlap, but Emperor Norton outnumbers any of them put together. His significance is that he claimed to be the Emperor of the United States and as a result he is most commonly known as Emperor Norton. Whether that was to humour him at the time or not is irrelevant. This is how he is now known. Charles 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to understand our naming conventions is painful. "Queen Elizabeth II" gets more hits than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". What is the underlying reason to use the latter, less common name rather than the more common former? Why does not being an emperor mean someone gets the word "Emperor" in their page name when actually being emperor would mean he does? DenisMoskowitz 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth is a special case, an explicit exception, covered in our convention on names and titles. Basically, we have Henry IV of England and Henry IV of France to disambiguate them; at that point we decided that the rest of the Kings and reigning Queens of England should be at of England (or of Great Britain or of the United Kingdom) as "preemptive disambiguation". It's nice to be able to predict where an article is, and we might find another Elizabeth II somewhere in Eastern Europe. (Or there may yet be one in Belgium.) Having done that, we don't need Queen, and it is sometimes easier to link without ("The funeral was attended by Vladimir Putin, Jimmy Carter, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, ...") This exception for reigning monarchs may not be the best idea, but we're stuck with it till there is consensus to change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
So if Sweden suddenly becomes an empire and their first emperor is named Norton, then that emperor would be on the page "Norton I of Sweden" and this page would be "Emperor Norton (eccentric)"? DenisMoskowitz 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Emperor Norton would be a dab page If... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. -- Stemonitis 06:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Emperor_Norton/Archive_5&oldid=1040288200"